Effectiveness of the UN Security Council in Controlling State Actions
Charged with the crucial task of preserving international peace and security, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) stands as the key organ within the United Nations framework. A cursory reading of the provisions of Article 23 of the UN Charter provided for fifteen members while Article 24 explicitly expresses the primary duty of the United Nations Security Council to ensure world peace with recourse to the aims and objectives of the United Nations. Article 25 has also created a wide net that automatically subjects every member of the United Nations to the decisions and actions of the UNSC which are carried out as a means to achieve the overall objectives of the council.
In essence, Chapter Seven of the United Nations Charter provides a blanket cover for collective security measures spearheaded by the United Nations Security Council in the occurrence of any threat to international peace, a breach of world peace, or any act of aggression perceived to have been committed or threatened by a nation against another.
There is an inherent and general prohibition of the use of force as contained in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the Customary International Law. However, the International Court of Justice has maintained two exceptions to this general rule; the activation of collective self-defence as entrenched in Article 51 of the UN Charter and the authorization of the use of force by the Security Council in the advancement of its mandate to ensure world peace and security. However, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States acted without consideration of these two exceptions and the general rule when they attacked the different facilities owned by the Syrian regime in 2018 due to the report of the regime’s use of chemical weapons on the civilian populace.[1] It has been argued that the situation in Syria and earlier cases like Kosovo, and Libya lacked the requisite authorization by the Security Council and were not done in respect of self-defense either.
The argument of self-defense, either preventive or anticipatory, is considered controversial and generally not accepted as a legal justification for unilateral force without an imminent or unavoidable attack. In the case of Syria, there was no imminent attack against the coalition states, negating the necessity of self-defense. Additionally, humanitarian intervention, distinct from the Responsibility to Protect concept, is another potential justification. However, since the UN Charter's establishment, such actions are generally viewed as breaches of Article 2(4).[2] The NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999, cited as a precedent for humanitarian intervention, was justified by NATO members based on special circumstances, including violations of previous Council resolutions and humanitarian concerns, but this stance remains contested in international law.
In the face of changing global practices and the evolution of modern warfare from basic cases of nations against nations as envisaged with the drafting of the UN Charter and in this instance, Chapter XII. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Centre in the United States prefigured the gradual decline in the rate of state-sponsored terrorism.[3] The problem has however taken a hydra-headed turn as transnational terrorism has risen tremendously. Terrorist attacks are on the rise with honourable mention of ISIS, Al-Shabaab, the Taliban, and Boko Haram, among others. States are now confronted with a new enemy outside the confines of the UN Charter and the Security Council is also faced with a new set of issues that were not premeditated at the drafting of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter.[4]
Furthermore, modern warfare is taking a new shape. Beyond military invasion and use of arms, there are new modes of invasion that have been identified to include cyber terrorism and warfare, and economic warfare, among others. Nations are inclined towards protecting their territorial, economic, and political integrity, and this would result in the use of force where necessary. Article 51 of the UN Charter provides every member state with the inherent right of self-defense. However, where a nation results in self-defense in the face of an inherent arm against it, such a measure adopted is required to be immediately reported to the UN Security Council.
Since the 1980s, many events have tested the position of the UN Security Council’s positions on Chapter XII in relation to transnational terrorism. One of such events was the Lockerbie incident in Scotland in December 1988. Two Libyan nationals were indicted by the United States and the United Kingdom governments which resulted in the call for the extradition of the suspects for trial. The Libyan government resisted the call to extradite the suspects and instead, sought alternative measures to resolve the dispute. This call was rejected by both the United States and the United Kingdom which then led to the intervention of the UN Security Council. Through the adoption of Resolution 731[5], the council urged Libya to comply with the extradition requests. Despite the Resolution passed by the council, Libya refused to comply which again led to the adoption of Resolution 748[6] under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. Libya’s refusal to comply was tagged a threat to international peace and security which further strengthened the resolve of the Security Council as contained in Resolution 883.[7]
The September 11 attack on the World Trade Center in the United States also highlighted the broader implication of international terrorism on global peace and security. The Security Council addressed this through two resolutions; Resolutions 1368 and 1373. These resolutions underscored the evolving global understanding and response to international terrorism, highlighting its far-reaching impacts on international relations and security dynamics.
Furthermore, there is an inherent dilemma posed by the evolving nature of armed conflict due to the use of modern warfare equipment, cyberterrorism, and transnational terrorism, among others which do not wear the cloak of the contemporary invasion of a state by another. The principle of collective security relies on nations rising to the occasion for one another and in the event of cyberterrorism which is often complex to track due to the level of technological advancements involved, it creates a new dimension of security responsibility for the Security Council and the member states generally which were not foreseen by the drafters of the United Nations Charter.
Amidst these challenges and limitations, there are assurances of a refined approach to centralized control to collective security by the United Nations Security Council in fulfilling its mandate to ensure world peace through the various resolutions passed. And in the light of changing circumstances and even power-play among the major players with the veto powers, the UNSC will continue to adapt its operations to suit changing realities and in line with the provisions of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
[1] Almary, M., “The Necessity for a permanent disincentive: examining the use of chemical weapons with a focus on Syria’s civil war”, Southwestern Journal of International law, 2018, pp. 312-313.
[2] Lemnitzer, J. “Syria strikes violated international law – are the rules of foreign intervention changing?” 2018.
http://theconversation.com/syria-strikes-violated-international-law are-the-rules-of-foreign-intervention-changing-95184 accessed 4th January, 2024.
[3] Comfort, L. “Rethinking security: organizational fragility in extreme events,” Public Admin Rev 62, Special Issue 2002b. pp 98–107
[4] Chalk, P., “EU counter-terrorism, the Maastricht third pillar and the liberal democratic acceptability. Terrorism and Political Violence,” 1996 pp. 103-145.
[5] S/Res. 731, 21 Jan. 1992.
[6] S/Res. 748, 31 Mar. 1992
[7] S/Res. 883, 11 Nov. 1993.